A convict said he raped a young stepdaughter as part of her sex education.

“When she grows up, she will have sex with… I wanted to tell her about the birds and bees in advance. It was a kind of sex education,” said the man who is serving a six-year sentence for the rape.
[…]
A consultant participating in the rehabilitation program said he was embarrassed when the convict told him that “I have already received due punishment as I served five of a six-year term as of today. God forgave me. Haven’t I paid enough for what I did?”

Share this:

Related

Disturbing when a creep like this doesn’t even show a sense of shame or remorse. Then he has the audacity to argue he should be set free!?? Fucker should never be let out. Almost certain to re-offend.

SalarymaninSeoul

There really should be an automatic death sentence on rapes of minors. 6 years is a joke. But he’s a man, he is entitled to satisfy his sexual urges, hence the pathetic sentences of this sort of living garbage.

http://www.chinasmack.com/tag/funny/page/3 Jakgani

Hhe was forcing her to have s3x with him when she was 13 / 14 / 15 years old.

She became pregnant via him when she was 15 years old.

He did not get the “six years” for having sex with a minor – because it is legal to have s2x with 13 year olds in Korea.

he got the 6 years – because he raped her – it was non-consensual s8x.

SalarymaninSeoul

So as I said, he raped a minor. He should be hanging.

Mrs. Choi

There are so many things in that article that make my head want to explode.

R. Elgin

This sort of mindset coupled with any law that makes it legal to have sex with a 13-year-old is very wrong. If the girl was my daughter and I killed this scumbag, the courts would probably give me a harsher sentence than what they would give this guy.

This is a law that needs revision.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

If the girl was my daughter and I killed this scumbag, the courts would probably give me a harsher sentence than what they would give this guy.

Every court in the world would give you a harsher sentence, because murder is a more serious crime than rape.

http://www.chinasmack.com/tag/funny/page/3 Jakgani

Even though it’s legal to have s3x with a 13 year old – as the middle school female teacher who was doing it with her student found out last year – when she faced no charges –

the guy still raped a minor.

“In Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, a minor is a person under 20 years of age”.

so Salaryman is correct – however.. I am against hanging and lethal injection as that’s too kind.

I am more for chopping his balls off and putting him to hard labor for the rest of his life in some gulag.

death penalties are too easy – make the bast@ard suffer for the rest of his life – just as his victim has to suffer for the rest of her life.

hamel

Either this story was missing from my morning printout of the KTimes, or I didn’t see it.

But the answer to this man’s question is a difficult one.

It raises the interesting and very practical question of what does a society do with a pedophile after he (or sometimes she) has served the time for the crime? Does a society:
1) kill it
2) exile it forever or effectively shun it outside the mainstream
3) somehow try to reintegrate them back into society with limitations/restrictions
4) somehow try to reintegrate them back into society withOUT limitations/restrictions

I ask this question because I have seen documentaries and news stories from several western countries in which the legal system follows course 3 or 4 above, but the people interviewed (not the pedophile or the direct victims) talk as if it should follow course 1 or 2.

cubuff70

Maybe some of his peers in jail should take it upon themselves to teach this guy the error of his ways….I’d be more willing to cut them slack than him!

Seth Gecko

The link to the story has the Korean version at the bottom, which seems much longer for some reason.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

I ask this question because I have seen documentaries and news stories from several western countries in which the legal system follows course 3 or 4 above, but the people interviewed (not the pedophile or the direct victims) talk as if it should follow course 1 or 2.

This makes me wonder if the entire concept of human rights is hoisted upon the population that was not “getting” it. The whole point of human rights is that even the worst criminal does not get more than a certain amount of punishment, stopping well short of death penalty or physical mutilation in most cases. But a lot of people simply do not understand this point.

http://www.chinasmack.com/tag/funny/page/3 Jakgani

The whole point of human rights is that even the worst criminal does not get more than a certain amount of punishment, stopping well short of death penalty or physical mutilation in most cases. But a lot of people simply do not understand this point.

He still thinks that what he did was “good” for the girl…

[The whole point of human rights is that even the worst criminal does not get more than a certain amount of punishment, stopping well short of death penalty or physical mutilation in most cases. But a lot of people simply do not understand this point.]

He can’t see that he messed up her life…. a young teenage girl, with enough stress as it is of being a teenager, trying to pass middle school exams, had to put up with “extra stress” from him, and an unwanted pregnancy….

We are not told whether she was able to finish middle school or high school, but she would be 20+ years old now.

Hopefully she was able to finish High school successfully.

meanwhile, he wants out of prison, and still thinks that what he did to her – was “good” for her education.

I am sure – we do understand “human rights” – but this guy thinks Roly’s God forgave him and that he is a “good educator of young girls”.

YangachiBastardo

I think rapists of minors should be put down. They should also be charged with the expenses of their own execution. People Republic of China is far from an ideal place, but they do get a few things correctly.

Their generous use of the death penalty is one of them

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

I am sure – we do understand “human rights”

You really don’t.

Arghaeri

Sure people do, just some people don’t agree that human right should apply to someone who has ceased being “human”.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

Sure people do, just some people don’t agree that human right should apply to someone who has ceased being “human”.

Your distorted definition of human right only goes to further demonstrate my point.

SalarymaninSeoul

I think that in theory making the guy labor for the rest of his life in the worst conditions sans balls would be a good option. But there are too many variables here that could over the long and even medium term lead to his release: human rights groups appealing on his behalf or some liberal twat of a judge taking pity on him. Even worse, what if he killed himelf thereby gaining a measure of control over his outcome? A death penalty, though not the most satisfying, would ensure that he stayed dead and that he died as punishment NOT as a means to get away from punishment.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

@18, question for you. (Out of genuine curiosity, not snark.) What do you think is an appropriate punishment for this guy if his crime was a cold-blooded, calculated murder of another adult male? Hard labor plus castration? Death penalty? Something harsher, or more lenient?

SalarymaninSeoul

Actually the whole concept of human rights has become a huge, disgusting joke. I dare thekorean to give us a proper definition of what he thinks human rights are. From my perspective there rights are not inherent in us, rather they are constructs that emerged within society. In other words, human rights are not absolutes and one only has them as long as one observes the rules of conduct of life within a society. If someone like this rapes a person, then he gives up any “rights” and just as he violated the person of a weaker, so his person is now fair game, to be violated as we see fit. Rights do not exist in a vaccuum; rights exist alongside obligations that need to be fulfilled: If you want to keep your life, do not take the life of another, if you want to be treated as a person then treat others as people. This is a simple case: the monster raped and destroyed the life of a minor who was entrusted to his care, and he deserves no more consideration as far as his rights go. His rights no longer exist as he has shown he is unable to live as a member of society. He is a predator and the flock has every right to eradicate preadators that threaten it.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

I dare thekorean to give us a proper definition of what he thinks human rights are.

People who are smarter than both you and me already came up with a proper definition: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Pay particular attention to Article 2, which says: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind[.]”

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

My point is this: we already have a clearly established definition of human rights for decades, and such definition has been put into practice in most liberal democracies for decades. Indeed, the question of whether human rights have been put into practice is determinative of whether a nation is a liberal democracy.

Yet even after all this time, we have a huge number of people in the liberal democracies who simply do not understand the idea of human rights. Not only do they not understand it, they actively repudiate it. Instead, they vocally advocate going back to the medieval barbarism — castration for rapists, severed hand for thieves, beheading for murderers. More pain inflicted, the better. And this comes from people who are otherwise quite content with liberal democracy.

My question is: why is this? And what does this mean for liberalism and democracy? If one considers oneself a committed liberal and democrat (as I do,) how does one resolve this apparently conflict?

Considering that my favored position is the way things are in all liberal democracies, I cannot see how my position is a “failure” in any sense of the word.

But hey, keep howling at the moon; someday the moon might listen.

SalarymaninSeoul

The universal declaration of human rights isnt worth its weight as toilet paper. Have you read it? Where does the UN get the authority to kindly give out these so-called “human rights”? Does it get them from God? Santa? Is the UN God? As far as I know, the UN has no real authority in any meaningful form, and the UN could be called, and I would call it so, the biggest mistake of the 2oth century. The fact that the UN’s Human Rights Council is the stronghold of the worst “human rights” abusers does not lend much credibility to it as a rights-granting body. Beware of bureacrats trying to play God, not much good comes out of it in the end.

Now, I would also ask you to speak for yourself. You may believe a bunch of bureacrats are smarter than you, and from what I’ve read from you I would agree with your self-depreciation. But please, do not insult me in such a way. Now, you must take me for an idiot or you are intellectually dishonest for not quoting the entire clause. Let me do that for you by picking up that clause from where you left off:

” … without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.” Nowhere in that is it stated that no distinction be made based on the person (being very liberal with this word) being a psychotapthic or sexually deviant predator who violates the rights of others. As I said, rights come with OBLIGATIONS, which this document barely recognizes. An animal who has turned on its flock stops being a member of that flock. It is an enemy and if is is sufficiently dangerous, it needs to be eradicated.

The whole concept of rights is suffering from what I’d term “rights inflation.” So while rights are a purely manmade construct, we can still apply reason to them and the one good litmus test of a rights system is if the rights within it are non-contradictory. We can build a system of rigths from the ground up. We can begin at the basic one (as the UN declaration does): right to life: all people can be granted the right to life and this is non-contradictory. We can then add further rights, rejecting all rights that contradict rights in the system. Now, from this perspective, Id have to reject the entire UN declaration of human rights based on the fact that it is absolutely full of contradictions. How, for example, do you reconcile Article 17, which talks about having the right to property and not being deprived of property with Article 22 (which sanctions massive wealth seizure under a system of Social Security) or Article 23 which seems to grant “rights” (to work, to FAVORABLE CONDITIONS at work, to some kind of a living wage) or Article 24 (that makes PAID VACATIONS into rights – by forcing employers to foot the bill) or Article 25 which states that everyone has the right to have a certain standard of living economically assured to them (such as unemployment insurance, social welfare). Article 26 talks about FREE stuff, like education, without acknowledging the fact that there are no free things and that funding of things like an education system, or a healthcare system, means that money has to be TAKEN from people so that what these rights grant can be given to other people. One can argue for the utility of this, and that would be a different discussion, but as a right within a system that acknowledged property rights, it is non-reconcilable. And what about paid vacations? Is it not true that forcing emoployers to pay wages above the market rate, and to provide vacations to their workers is a seziure of property? The system cannot stand.

Systems of rights suffer from such contradictions due to rights inflation: when too many special interests demand to be seen as rights. Usually, these are cash-grabs, and nothing more noble that that. And just as with money printing, the whole idea of rights gets inflated into monopoly money status. We are now hearing that internet access is a right, and the one has a right to force property owners to broadcast messages that go against the beliefs of said owners. Similarly, now the US is forcing religious organizations to provide contraceptions to their employees. We are no longer dealing with rights, but with power politics. Those with rights are those who have more political power.

As a good example, look at Article 27 alone:

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Even within one single article there are contradictions since how can an artist or scientist enjoy protection of the fruit of his labor if everyone has the right to enjoy it? For everyone to have the right to enjoy it it would have to be free or of such a low price as to make it impossible for subsection 2 to be meaningful, and vice versa.

The UN declartion of rights, finally, suffers from ambiguity. One cannot read it and have any real understanding of what it really says because it is so ambiguous as to allow far too much leeway in interpretation. It is not only riddled with contradictions, it is also meaningless.

SalarymaninSeoul

I will add, indidentally, that I have little regard for democracy and liberalism, and people who are liberal democrats. In fact, it would be hard for me to find less appealing personalities, or more dull skulls than such people.

Wedge

TK: Your definition of liberalism means people shouldn’t be held accountable for their actions. My definition, the classical one from the 19th Century, says the opposite.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

Have you read it?

Yes.

Where does the UN get the authority to kindly give out these so-called “human rights”? Does it get them from God? Santa? Is the UN God?

Where do you get such authority to proudly declare your own version of what human rights should be?

Nowhere in that is it stated that no distinction be made based on the person (being very liberal with this word) being a psychotapthic or sexually deviant predator who violates the rights of others.

Do you know what “any” means?

How, for example, do you reconcile Article 17 . . .

I can recommend you a lot of books that discuss this topic, if you are interested. But I am nearly certain that you are not.

The UN declartion of rights, finally, suffers from ambiguity. One cannot read it and have any real understanding of what it really says because it is so ambiguous as to allow far too much leeway in interpretation. It is not only riddled with contradictions, it is also meaningless.

You can say that about any text in human history — especially if you use your own preferred definition of a simple word like, say, “any”.

If you have the mind to, please address my question @19. I am actually trying to figure out how you would practically address a situation in criminal justice system. Thanks.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

I will add, indidentally, that I have little regard for democracy and liberalism, and people who are liberal democrats.

Why do you live in a democratic country then? Surely, there are many countries out there that more closely align with your ideology.

Your definition of liberalism means people shouldn’t be held accountable for their actions.

How? Did I advocate for abolition of criminal justice system or something? How is it that serving a very long jail term for a crime is “not being held accountable”?

SalarymaninSeoul

“Or any other limitation of sovereignty.” As far as I know the status of predator does not enjoy status of sovereignty under any constitution. Are sexual predators to be granted such status?

You are ducking the question. The fact is that Article 17 cannot be reconciled with any of the articles I cited because they all violate the right to property and the right against arbitratry seizure of property. If you read the document with some understanding, other contradictions become apparent.

I would be interested in your reading list, though Im sure it has such pearls of wisdom as Rawls or perhaps a pop-crap book by Sandel for the intellectually stunted.

As I said, I am for retributive justice.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

You are ducking the question.

I answered all your questions. On the other hand, you did not answer any of my questions, which are quite simple to answer.

SalarymaninSeoul

6 years is a “very long period?”

Actually, as far as my ideology, you really don’t know what it is, but as a hint, I’ll tell you that no state on this planet meets my ideology. The real problem is with what democracy has become and with what liberalism has become, and the state of liberal democracy today. The liberalism of people like Bastiat has been twisted into something unrecognizable. As a result, democracy has turned into sanctioned theft as the original rights of what the 19th century liberals held to be (wrongly) natural rights have been replaced with a system that uses newly coined rights as political tools for grabbing as much power and money as possible.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

6 years is a “very long period?”

No. But even if the guy went away for 30 years, you won’t be satisfied unless he is put to death, right?

By the way, how long are you going to go on not answering my questions? Here, I’ll even do you a favor and reduce them to just one: in your mind, what would be the proper punishment for the five major crimes (=murder, rape, arson, robbery, assault)?

SalarymaninSeoul

Murder should be met with the death penalty.
Arson, robbery and assault are crimes on property and I would not call for imprisonment for them, but restitution of property + additional compensation so that the account is in the favor of the victim. If this is not possible then debtor’s prison is an option if the victim agrees. One thing I find revolting is that such crimes are punished by the state on behalf of the state instead of by the state on behalf of the victim. Restitution of property and additional compensation going to the victim instead of the state jailing the wrongdoer is preferable.
Rape is tricky, since under retributive justice I would see the rapist raped himself. But there is far more to this case than just the act of rape; there is the abuse of power as a guardian of a minor, the lack of any feeling of remorse for his actions, the fact that even if he were raped he would not suffer the consequnces of the rape as acutely as a 13 year old girl or a 15 year old girl with a rape baby. His life would not be ruined as a result. As such, the rape itself would not be enough and a more harsh punishment is necessary. Furthermore its perfectly legitimate to make the case that he is a danger to others since he obviously sees what he did as a good thing, as an education, and upon release he would most likely rape again. As such, society has a right to protect itself and its most vulnerable. Either keep him in prison for life or kill him, but whatever option is chosen, he should never be released. And as I said, because there are people like you who believe he has paid his dues after a couple of years, there is a very real danger of him being released EVEN IF originally sentenced to life in prison. Hence, death is the only option that keeps him away from potential victims.

SalarymaninSeoul

Sorry, assault is not a crime on property and for assault I would see a prison sentence as the appropriate penalty based on the severity of the assault.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

Excellent, thanks. Any other takers? Wedgie, what does your 19th century aesthetics say? I am more curious about your view because you seem to value democracy. Let’s air it all out.

SalarymaninSeoul

Now, tk, what about that reading list? And how do you reconcile private property rights to rights of other to take your property as the UN declaration declares. If I am a business owner, you demanding 2 weeks of paid vacation and a wage far above what the market dictates, imposed on my by some government authority, is a violation of my rights to my property. Dont just send me off to do some reading, that is lazy on your part.

SalarymaninSeoul

BTW, I think you meant ethics, not aesthetics. It would be nice to use basic terms as they are mean to be used. Wedgie’s 19th century ethics are preferable to your pro-rape ethics.

Well, you are right, having looked at it I have no interest in reading any of it. You are proof that a broken clock is right twice a day, except you’ve only been right once today.

SalarymaninSeoul

“Aesthetics (also spelled æsthetics) is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of art, beauty, and taste, with the creation and appreciation of beauty. It is more scientifically defined as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste. More broadly, scholars in the field define aesthetics as “critical reflection on art, culture and nature.””

I don’t think you meant aesthetics. have you ever read a philosophy book?

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

I don’t think you meant aesthetics.

I meant what I said.

have you ever read a philosophy book?

Yes.

SalarymaninSeoul

Nowhere did we broach the subject of beauty and art. Nowhere. Aesthetics never cama up and Wedgie never brough up aesthetics. Which book did you read?

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

Nowhere did we broach the subject of beauty and art. Nowhere. Aesthetics never cama up and Wedgie never brough up aesthetics.

No, the discussion has not been about aesthetics. It has been more about ethics of criminal punishment, a bit on morality, but not even a bit about aesthetics. You will have to do some fancy typng to tuen a discussion on criminal justice into a discussion on beauty and art. Good luck.

SalarymaninSeoul

No, the discussion has not been about aesthetics. It has been more about ethics of criminal punishment, a bit on morality, but not even a bit about aesthetics. You will have to do some fancy typing to turn a discussion on criminal justice into a discussion on beauty and art. Good luck.

SalarymaninSeoul

And your book is a book about philosophy, not really a philosophy book.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

No, the discussion has not been about aesthetics. It has been more about ethics of criminal punishment, a bit on morality, but not even a bit about aesthetics.

Then you will have to think a little harder on what I meant.

And your book is a book about philosophy, not really a philosophy book.

What makes you think I care?

SalarymaninSeoul

You didnt really mean anything as nothing you wrote revealed a substantive position on anything other than that you think rapists should get light punishments. You never answered any questions I posed to you and you declined to anwer how a system can both defend private property and the taking of the private property of others and still retain a semblence of coherence. One thing is for sure, the Declaration is a perfect example of the confusion and incoherence of the modern day liberal position that you seem to subscribe to.

Finally, I would challenge you to come up with one example of a statement on aesthetics from this discussion. Please quote it, if you can.

깊은 구멍 속에

Every court in the world would give you a harsher sentence, because murder is a more serious crime than rape.

Perhaps Texas is not part of the world. It’s always been an idea that I’ve entertained.

That Texas father violated the HUMAN RIGHTS of the rapist. Shame on the father, we all need to worship the concept of HUMAN RIGHTS. Human rights is, after all, the new secular religion and blasphemy against this religion is not acceptable. Under the guise of this new faith, all sorts of deviant and aggressive garbage, all sorts of mediocrity is now the new standard to aim for, with apologists like thekorean slithering out of the woodwork wherever the human rights of subhuman scum is questioned. Of course under this new dogma, if any individual dares to sin against these rights he becomes a pariah who sins against the holy collective. A rapist who rapes an individual is elevated above his victim because in him live these HUMAN RIGHTS. The victim is a mere unit, the perp is a vessel of HUMAN RIGHTS and as such the perp’s rights trump the individual rights to satisfaction. This is the motivation of those pushing for lieniency towards criminals, and it is the classic position of the new liberals: the individual’s rights no longer are recognized, we now have HUMAN rights that reduce the individual to nothingness.

wb

Every court in the world would give you a harsher sentence, because murder is a more serious crime than rape.

This has been a rather fun debate to watch, though TK pretty much trashed Salary.

Salary your retributive system ~sounds~ good yet in practice it’s been shown to be extremely bad for society. Just take a look in the middle east where it’s still practiced to get a good idea of it’s effects. See that sort of system only works well if your the one on top, the one deciding the retribution. If your not of the ruling class then that sort of system quickly becomes distorted. Things like due process, appeal to higher authority and equity of punishment quickly get thrown out.

You’ve also replaced Justice with Vengeance which we all [u]should[/u] agree is a pretty bad thing. Unless you like pretending to be Attila. The reason why crimes are prosecuted by the state for the state is that laws are created by the state. Your not being prosecuted for killing someone, your being prosecuted for committing murder / manslaughter, those are not the same things. Even though you injured a third party, the law that you broke during that injury is the states law and thus you answer to the state for the breaking of that law.

As for the dirt bag in question, six years is too short a time in my own opinion. It is consistent with how the SK judicial system works with respect to crimes committed between two Koreans.

To what TK was asking about penalty, it depends. Having universal penalty’s excludes the existence of mitigating circumstances and degree of crime. Murder from someone who is found to be incapable of recognizing right from wrong or being rehabilitated should be met with swift death. The death is not retaliation but a preventative measure, that individual is a severe danger to other members of society as the likelihood of them killing again is rather high. If they are determined to rehabilitated then some form of rehabilitation and incarceration should take place. I have a rather practical view on these things and while I truly respect the concepts of inalienable human rights, there are some practical limits that a society needs to function.

To everyone else, the thing with human rights is that you can’t arbitrarily remove them when it’s inconvenient for your conscience. They are universal and thus can not be removed when you want to feel morally justified for a thought.

SalarymaninSeoul

There are no universal rights, nor are there absolute rights. Thats a basic fallacy. There is no source of rights within us, all rights are social constructs. All rights come from without. They can be thought of as contractually specified ground rules in a voluntary society, or as positvist conceptions in a Statist society. I lean towards the former, you obviously towards the latter. But no inherent, absolute or universal rights have ever existed. We invented these concepts over the millenia of life in a civilization.

Can retributive justice be abused? Of course. Can the current form of justice be abused? Of course. It happens all the time, people are given penalties that are too lenient, and at times penalties that are too severe. I see nothing especially sinister about retributive justice. Its an idea that the crime should be reflected in the punishment, not in the personal whim of a judge. There is nothing about vengence here, it is about recognizing who is the victim: is it the state or the actual victim and assuring appropriate satisfaction to the injured party.

All you have done is told us that the state makes the laws – the State. Everyone knows this, this is pretty obvious. Yet this says nothing about who OUGHT to make the laws and if the state ought even to exist. You are basically committing Hume’s naturalistic fallacy when you imply a normative statement from the descriptive statement.

I would argue that the State is the biggest criminal of them all and to have it make the laws and enforce them only strengthens the State’s monopoly on crime. It is an absurdity. As things stand, the State owns us and it owns the right to punish crimes against us: to gain satisfaction for ITSELF, more often than not, at the expense of the actual injured party. This is the immorality of the situation as you have described it.

Human rights are incompatible with individual rights, and as the State grows in power you see the latter conception of rights replaced by the former. Individual rights strengthen the individual against the State. Human rights dissolve the individual within the State. If you think thekorean won, you have simply shown us your statist leanings and your worship of the State. This is not surprising for a Korean to argue, the level of state indoctrination in this country is mindboggling. I’ve never seen people so rabidly nationalistic with a country-above-all mentality as Koreans. For a Westerner it is a little bit more surprising.

palladin9479

There is no such thing as retributive justice, it’s an oxymoron. Retribution comes from subjective emotions, justice comes from objective rational thought, the two are incompatible with each other. Retribution can come about via Justice but it can not control it nor should justice be subjected to retribution.

The rest of your post is just you blathering in an attempt to show intelligence and feel superior. If you truly believed those things you argued then you wouldn’t be on this forum posting nor would you be living in a 1st world country. No you don’t actually believe in such a pure anarchic view, you conscious merely finds it a convenient method to explain and justify your emotional feelings.

Where as TK was rational and used logic, you were irrational and used subjective emotions. Your arguments have several logical fallacies present including but not limited to straw man, ad hominem and appeal to ridicule.

SalarymaninSeoul

There is no reason why retributive justice, which basically says that the punishment fits the crime, has to be “emotional.” Retributive justice can very well involve all the safeguards of the current system: the rules for evidence, the trial by a jury, etc. The only difference being in the punishment at the end. Your position lack any logic.

Tell me where I can go to live in an anarchic world. And don’t say Somalia, that would simply further expose your ignorance.

An ad hominem is not always logical fallacy when it is deserved – when a position is absurd and lacks merit it is perfectly legitimate to insult the opponent. I first established the error in TK’s argument before launching an invective, not vice versa. Ever read a Socratic dialogue? Ever read Nietzsche? There are invectives in Nietzsche that havent even been approached in this discussion. And Socrates had the nastiest mean streak. Paul Feyerabend and Charles taylor also defended the ad hominem form or reasoning as legitimate. Appeal to ridicule is not a logical fallacy either – reductio ad absurdum, for example is considered a legitimate form of argument and it also strives to reduce the opposing argument to ridicule.

TK avoided answering any questions and never actually made an argument other than appeal to authority of “smarter people than you and I” in reference the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

R. Elgin

Per #12,

Every court in the world would give you a harsher sentence, because murder is a more serious crime than rape.

TK, this is a very literal interpretation of crime and punishment, to claim one is worse than the other.
If a grown man raped a father’s child and the father responded by killing the rapist, I don’t think many people would sympathize with the dead rapist or want to punish the father.
We could try to determine if a rapists desire to rape could be eliminated but if the urge springs from anger instead of sexual urge, then psychiatric counseling while in confinement might help but people like this should be monitored and evaluated.
Regarding this man, I would be in favor of removing his genitals entirely since that seems to be the only sort of remedy that would prevent him from engaging in his twisted POV. As, per your reasoning, this would be a lesser punishment than killing him outright.

Arghaeri

Your distorted definition of human right only goes to further demonstrate my point.

Since I never gave a definition of human, nor gave any indication of my opinion on the matter the only thing demonstrated as usual is that you are an arrogant arse who can only rudely dismiss others rather than debate with them.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

Perhaps Texas is not part of the world. It’s always been an idea that I’ve entertained.

Come on Joel. Think a little bit about the difference between the TX incidence you were referring to, versus what Elgin wrote. And then think about why the TX incidence even made the news.

TK, this is a very literal interpretation of crime and punishment, to claim one is worse than the other.

When it comes to criminal justice, I think “literal” is the only type of interpretation there can be.

As, per your reasoning, this would be a lesser punishment than killing him outright.

Sure, but it will still be unconstitutional.

Since I never gave a definition of human, nor gave any indication of my opinion on the matter . . .

“I did not write what I wrote.” Always a winning tactic.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

Murder from someone who is found to be incapable of recognizing right from wrong or being rehabilitated should be met with swift death. The death is not retaliation but a preventative measure, that individual is a severe danger to other members of society as the likelihood of them killing again is rather high.

Thanks for this. A couple of follow up questions:

– Is there a reason why you do not favor life without parole over capital punishment, if deterrence is what matters to you? Cost?

– How do you reconcile the apparent clash between “swift” capital punishment and a proper assessment of rehabilitative potential? A lot of people become rehabilitated after, say, a decade in prison.

Arghaeri

“I did not write what I wrote.” Always a winning tactic.

Point proven, thanks. I wrote what I wrote that you consider it a definition or my opinion on the matter is your own imagination.

Arghaeri

Where do you get such authority to proudly declare your own version of what human rights should be?

I believe that would come under the constitutional right to free speech, surprised a high falutin lawyer like you ain’t aware of it.

I am alao wondering how you reconcile your views on human rights with your previously expressed “entiltlement” to beat and torture your children in order to achieve acedemic success.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

I wrote what I wrote that you consider it a definition or my opinion on the matter is your own imagination.

So then, you expect me to debate with my own imagination?

Your entire MO is about throwing in a clever one-liner, and run like hell when presented with a serious argument. It was funny at first, but now it’s just tiresome. Come back when you have a real point to make, and are ready to back it up with some serious argumentation. Until then, you don’t get to complain about how I won’t debate you, particularly when you disclaim the ownership of what little you write.

Arghaeri

Your entire MO is about throwing in a clever one-liner, and run like hell when presented with a serious argument.

So this response is a serious argument,

Your distorted definition of human right only goes to further demonstrate my point.

and this is a serious argument,

“I did not write what I wrote.” Always a winning tactic.

and this

So then, you expect me to debate with my own imagination?

and this

Your entire MO is about throwing in a clever one-liner, and run like hell when presented with a serious argument.

Seems to me all the “clever” one liners and refusal to engage above are yours.

All this intelligent response to a simple observation that some people understand human rights but nonetheless consider that a person who ignores and violates the rights of others should in doing so forfeit their own rights. I never stated that to be an opinion I share, but was pointing in response to your
“clever one-liner”

You really don’t.

to someone who disagreed wirh you.

The “tiresome” thing is that you whine on several about lack of reasoned debate when when you are continually one of the worst offenders.

You frequently demand citations and priof but frequently fail to provide any yourself.
Whilst salaryman logic was weak your best effort is “better minds than you and me”, give us a break if thats what you think is conclusive debate.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

All this intelligent response to a simple observation that some people understand human rights but nonetheless consider that a person who ignores and violates the rights of others should in doing so forfeit their own rights. I never stated that to be an opinion I share, but was pointing in response to your “clever one-liner”

“I wrote something. I don’t believe in it, but I wrote it anyway just to fuck with you. If you challenge what I wrote, I will claim that I don’t believe in what I wrote. But if you don’t challenge what I wrote, I will bitch and moan about how you don’t want to debate.”

That about sums it up, I think.

If you are genuinely curious about the point I have been making in this thread, please refer to my comments at @12, @22. You are welcome to address my point, if you would like, and we can have a productive discussion. But if all you want to do is to satisfy your urge to score a mental victory over me — a lot of people feel that urge, so you’re not alone — then by all means, keep waving your arms. I stopped caring about the likes of you long time ago.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

Oh, and if you want to see the difference in my attitude in addressing a frivolous point versus a serious one, check out the difference in the ways in which I responded to Salary/Jakgani on one hand, and Elgin/Joel/Palladin on the other.

I operate on the principle of reciprocity — spew garbage, and all you are getting is a shovel. Make an intelligent point, and I will return the favor.

http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/ jefferyhodges

TK (#66) wrote: “I operate on the principle of reciprocity — spew garbage, and all you are getting is a shovel. Make an intelligent point, and I will return the favor.”

But you’re inconsistent, TK. I engaged you in a discussion on multiculturalism in which I neither attacked you personally nor grew angry, but both of these were evident in your response to me.

You’re intelligent and erudite, but you lack the wisdom that comes from humility gained in life through failure for which you can only blame yourself.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

But you’re inconsistent, TK. I engaged you in a discussion on multiculturalism in which I neither attacked you personally nor grew angry, but both of these were evident in your response to me.

Mr. Hodges, I don’t think I ever attacked you personally or got angry at you, not then, not at any time. In fact, that entire exchange was puzzling for me, because you appeared to take offense when none was intended.

SalarymaninSeoul

TK,

is #12 and #22 indicative of your position? #12 is you wondering why so many people are not as enlightened as you on this topic of human rights, while #22 is an appeal to the authority of the bureaucrats who put together the “standard of human rights” that we have “enjoyed” for decades. As far as I can see, there is very little meat on the bones as far as your “contribution” to this topic goes. I take it you are a lawyer. I am now no longer surprised why in Korea rapists and molestors usually end up getting ridiculously light sentences – your opinion (which you attempted to backtrack on) was that 6 years was a very long sentence for the repeated molestation of a girl from the age of 13 to the age of 15 by a man who shows ZERO remorse but who actually seems to demand that she thank him for the “education.” What is surprising, however, is your position on human rights, which is essentially religious: you see human rights as unconditional and eternal, bestowed upon us by a higher authority – no, not God, but bureaucrats playing God. That a scumbag wilfuly and maliciously raped (as it were) the rights of this girl and insinuated that he will do it again (why stop a good thing? everyone needs an education, especially young girls) doesn’t seem to bother you at all; what does seem to concern you more than the very real danger this guy presents to others is not even him, per se, but this IDEA of human rights – you value the abstract idea over the concrete person. Now, that really is worthy of a lawyer.

“Scoring a mental victory” over you is as much of an urge as being thirtsy – easily satisfied. People don’t really care to score any victory over you, as much as they care about correcting what you spew..but this is a very different task, and avery different urge, more comparable to coming home only to find that the dog made a mess in the kitchen. One cleans up the crap out of necessity, not out of the urge to feel some satisfaction. Here is an ad hominem for ya – you’re a LAWYER…hardly a claim to greatness.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

Shovel time.

Arghaeri

“I wrote something. I don’t believe in it, but I wrote it anyway just to fuck with you. If you challenge what I wrote, I will claim that I don’t believe in what I wrote. But if you don’t challenge what I wrote, I will bitch and moan about how you don’t want to debate.”

No TK you are just demonstrating you usual unreasonablness to those who make points that disagree with you, often with quite unreasonable and irrelevant point, not to mention in this case it seems paranoia.

You made the “clever dick” remark to a commenter “no you don’t” when they said thay undertood the principle of human rights I pointed out that one can understand whilst not fully agreeing that such principles should be applied in all cases.

This is fundamental to the discussion, since I believe most people will get on board with the ideal, but unfortunately the workd is not ideal and have real pragmatic concerns anout the application.

But all you can do is condescendingly dismiss them with such as “you don’t underrstand” and worse your repetetive dismissal line of “cleverer people than you”.

You dismissively put aside salariman, for his inabilty to understand “any” and yet demonstrate the same inabilty with the concept of “some people” and imagine a conspiracy to fuck with you. lordy lotd! The only one who has escalated this to “fuck yoy” is you.

You talk about “runaway” this reminds me of another example of your logical debate, in the discussion of the beef demonstrations and their harm to local shopkeepers and the like, your “witty” remark when you were making no headway was “what have you (whiteys) done for the local shopkeepers” as if thos were in any way relevant. When I responded, well actually I frequently shop there anc buy tbeir goods, what do you for them – you ran away, i’m still wIting for an answer.

Another of your inconsistincies, to ask people to give you answers, whilst ingnoring others questions.

SalarymaninSeoul

#70, youve now been reduced to one liners. This is what I meant by it (defeating you mentally) being an urge easily satisfied – you defeat yourself. Good God, man, grown a spine.

You haven’t answered a single one of my questions, you realize that, don’t you? You still have not addressed the fact that the Declaration has self-defeating contradictions even within single articles, not to mention between different articles. But of course the blind worship of a higher authority makes one blind to that – very much the same thing with the religious.

깊은 구멍 속에

Come on Joel. Think a little bit about the difference between the TX incidence you were referring to, versus what Elgin wrote. And then think about why the TX incidence even made the news.

@TK

I was trying to make a joke, not be intentionally obtuse. I see the differences clearly.

R. Elgin’s scenario would place him as the hypothetical father of a teenage daughter who had been repeatedly raped by her step father. He would then take intentional action without direct contact with the incident to end the life of the step father. There is no way to determine whether Elgin would feel remorse after committing said murder.

In the case of Texas, the man walked in/witnessed his 5 year old daughter being raped, went into a rage and beat the man to death. At which point he felt immediately remorseful and called the authorities.

However, the point remains, however, that both of them ended a human life under the extreme (hypothetical in Elgin’s case) duress of having your child assaulted and violated in the most heinous of ways. Frankly, I am inclined to agree that in theory your initial statement that “Every court in the world would give you a harsher sentence, because murder is a more serious crime than rape” should be correct. However, I am providing an instance where this is not the case–in fact the man was never even asked to stand trial. Juries, while asked to sustain and uphold the law, very often make visceral reactions that make the reality of justice/punishment quite different from the theory of justice/punishment. (Frankly it wouldn’t surprise me if the rugby player in South Africa got off too because of racist undertones in the society and a constant fear of violence/rape that would influence any decision a jury might make–despite the premeditated and extremely gruesome nature of the offense).

As near as I can tell from the Texas Penal Code, the father in question from the first should be brought up on charges of second degree murder or manslaughter.

In the case of second degree murder it would be for “intending to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual” mitigated by the circumstances “caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause.”

Or manslaughter: “A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual.”

In the case of Elgin, it may be slightly harder to prove second degree murder or manslaughter rather than first degree murder, but he would likely have no trouble convincing a jury of parents that he felt sudden passion with adequate cause mitigating it to a second degree offense.

One would wonder if the exclusive use of “he” in the Texas penal code would exonerate women from murder convictions as they are clearly not included in the definition.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

@71, good lord man — I am usually not the one to put too fine a point on punctuation, but can you at least put in some effort? The way you wrote it, only a dyslexic could understand it correctly.

I will give you the courtesy of dealing with your initial comment, and show you what’s wrong with it. Back up in @13, Jakgani claimed that he understood human rights, yet at the same time he clamored about the sins and innocence of the criminal and the victim.

His weighing of such sins and innocence, by definition, demonstrates that he does not understand “human rights”. Again, the operative definition of “human rights” is such that it applies to EVERYONE, even the most heinous criminals. This is how human rights have been understood since the end of World War II, and this is how human rights have been put into action in any liberal democracy in the world, by the function of their constitutions. This definition of human rights is not simply an ideal; it has been the operative definition that has been put into application. Therefore, in a liberal democracy, even the most heinous criminals are spared from torture and bodily mutilation. (And in most liberal democracies, they are also spared from death penalty.) If you ever consider that human rights may not apply to any human for any reason, that’s a sign that you are not properly understanding what human rights mean, and how they operate in the modern world.

Your comment: “Sure people do, just some people don’t agree that human right should apply to someone who has ceased being “human”.” –> further reinforces this mistake. Hence, my reply: “Your distorted definition of human right only goes to further demonstrate my point.” –> the point here being, a lot of people just don’t “get” human rights. (This point was raised in my @12.)

Instead of grasping this point, you fly off the handle about how it’s not “your” idea that human rights may not apply to some humans, regardless of the fact that you wrote it. Shoot, then whose idea is it? And how is that even relevant? The point, again, is that a lot of people don’t understand what human rights mean. I even directed you to the points that I was making, in @12 and @22. But instead of addressing the point, you go back to your dossier of me and drag out all kinds of irrelevant stuff, just to “win” at this stupid “argument” that somehow matters so much to you.

Fine, you win. Enjoy your mental victory. Come back when you have a point to make.

Arghaeri

I remain interested for example in an intelligent response to the question of what authority does the UN an unelected body in NY have to apply its definition.

As opposed to your respectful response of what right do you have to express an opinion.

I also remain genuinly interested in how you reconcile your hardline literal views on application of human rights with your clealry expressed entiltlement to beat your kids if they don’t study hard. A child surely coming within the term “any”.

http://rjkoehler.com Robert Koehler

Frankly it wouldn’t surprise me if the rugby player in South Africa got off too because of racist undertones in the society and a constant fear of violence/rape that would influence any decision a jury might make–despite the premeditated and extremely gruesome nature of the offense

Regarding the racist undertones, the rugby player in question was black (don’t look at the photo):

I will also say that in the case of the Daily Mail article, it was interesting just how the racial angle got played when it was assumed the father was white. Which is to say, the possibility he was targeting black folk because of their race was raised, but the possibility that his daughter was gang raped because she was white was not.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

I was trying to make a joke, not be intentionally obtuse. I see the differences clearly.

Then my apologies.

In the case of Elgin, it may be slightly harder to prove second degree murder or manslaughter rather than first degree murder, but he would likely have no trouble convincing a jury of parents that he felt sudden passion with adequate cause mitigating it to a second degree offense. Thoughts?

I think you are right. If I were the prosecutor, I might even plea out to manslaughter, and avoid the jury altogether.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

I remain interested for example in an intelligent response to the question of what authority does the UN an unelected body in NY have to apply its definition. . . . I also remain genuinly interested in how you reconcile your hardline literal views on application of human rights with your clealry expressed entiltlement to beat your kids if they don’t study hard. A child surely coming within the term “any”.

After all the screeching and arm-waving you have done here just to win an irrelevant argument (those spellings and punctuations, please!), you expect me to believe that you are “genuinely interested” in my views? How stupid do you think I am? If you want to claw at my views just to score a mental victory, I have written a whole ton about my thoughts on a lot of controversial issues on my blog. If you want something fresh, I am sure you won’t have to wait too long before I give a fresh piece of my mind at MH.

SalarymaninSeoul

I don’t think it is the question of not UNDERSTANDING what human rights are, but perhaps more the case of not agreeing with what the UN claims human rights are, or even rejecting the whole idea outright or at least the idea that human rights cannot be lost by the sheer inhuman act of the criminal.

http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/ jefferyhodges

TK (#68), you recall no personal attack? Then let me remind you of this.

You might also want to see three substantive posts: this, this, and this.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

iMe

All (child) molesters/rapists should be castrated.

gbnhj

Jeffery, did you expect something different? As the saying goes, it was ever thus.

http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/ jefferyhodges

I learned the truth at seventeen, gnbh, and nearly forty years on, I expected nothing different.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/ jefferyhodges

Oops . . . “gbnhj.” My eyes are getting old, too.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

Jashin Densetsu

the only real human right is freedom of association for people who share beliefs to live out their beliefs by mutual consent. e.g., people who like stronger punishment can get together with others with the same belief and form a society with stronger punishment, people who like lighter punishment can do likewise, etc. anything else is just a contest to try to determine beliefs for everyone and force or manipulate everyone into them, like we see above.

SalarymaninSeoul

Jashin,

well said. A society created by consent of the people, real consent not the fictitious consent we have now where we talk of democracy and representatives but what we really have is a predatory government run by thieves, gangsters, liars and cheaters who represent special interests.Whatever the party, whoever the candidate, nothing ever really changes. And the vote, the holy vote, a 1/200,000,000 of a voice – a farce. Democracy is a putrid system because it blinds people to the fact that they have no real influence on the government.

Arghaeri

@71, good lord man — I am usually not the one to put too fine a point on punctuation, but can you at least put in some effort? The way you wrote it, only a dyslexic could understand it correctly.

I do apologise, but public transport and phone keyboards and pressing engagements do not fit well together, and unfortunately no editing is possible after the send button.

I note by the way your tacit admission to suffering from dyslexia, I will try to consider your special situation in future.

Arghaeri

I will give you the courtesy of dealing with your initial comment, and show you what’s wrong with it.

Thank you, whilst I do not agree with everything you write, at least it is logical discourse. Whereas simply stating that someone does not understand is no arument whatsoever.

Arghaeri

This definition of human rights is not simply an ideal; it has been the operative definition that has been put into application

This is the way it is commonly understood, but as a human construct, this understanding is not universally agreed. Further to state that this is how it is applied, seems contrary considering that for example the US still actively enforces the death penalty.

Arghaeri

After all the screeching and arm-waving you have done here just to win an irrelevant argument (those spellings and punctuations, please!), you expect me to believe that you are “genuinely interested” in my views? How stupid do you think I am?

Ah, paranoid avoidance again, I happen to think you are an intelligent guy, with some very interesting views which have on occasions made me reflect on my own views.

So yes, I was interested, but your paranoid response was not at all unexpected.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

TK (#68), you recall no personal attack? Then let me remind you of this.

I remember the exchange you are referring to, Mr. Hodges. And I don’t think it was a personal attack. I was attacking your mode of reasoning — namely, criticizing multiculturalism generally based on a fringe and distorted definition of the term “multiculturalism.” I pointed this out, and you had to retreat to the finer distinction of “moderate” and “radical” multiculturalism. Yet you continued to criticize multiculturalism overall, sailing past those distinctions.

I dislike revisiting old arguments, but out of courtesy to do I will make an exception here. To date, despite my request to do so, you are yet to identify any reputable source that sincerely advanced what you termed “radical multiculturalism” — which, in my view, is not multiculturalism at all, but simply an appalling lack of moral compass. Instead, all you did was to identify someone you knew who held the absurd position that FGM is to be condoned under her definition of “multiculturalism,” and used that patently incorrect definition to criticize the multiculturalism that would make Korea to be more generous to its immigrants (which was the original topic of the thread in MH.)

This would be considered category error. (By this comment: “If you are allowed to criticize multiculturalism because some crazies appropriate its good name, I can just as easily put you in the same category as the dyed-in-the-wool racists who clamor for higher walls along the border[,]” I demonstrated how this category error could work against you.) And this mode of argumentation is dishonest, because it fraudulently substitutes one thing for another.

To emphasize again: what is dishonest is the mode of argumentation that you employed. I don’t think saying so is a personal attack.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

This is the way it is commonly understood, but as a human construct, this understanding is not universally agreed.

That has been my point the entire time. Refer to my @22. Now that you caught up, let’s try and move the ball forward.

Ah, paranoid avoidance again

I wrote more in this thread than anyone else, and I’m avoiding?

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

Whereas simply stating that someone does not understand is no arument whatsoever.

That’s the shovel – it was not meant to be an argument.

http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

what is dishonest is the mode of argumentation that you employed. I don’t think saying so is a personal attack

Accusing someone of “dishonesty” (and racism, which you also attributed to HJH) is personal. If your attack weren’t personal you could simply have said he was mistaken, incorrect or had reasoned ineptly. Your failure to understand and admit that your remarks were personal is a sign of how your moral compass has been thrown out of whack by your repulsive arrogance.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

Accusing someone of “dishonesty” (and racism, which you also attributed to HJH) is personal.

In my discussion with Mr. Hodges, I did not accuse anyone, and attributed nothing. Read the words I wrote.

Your failure to understand and admit that your remarks were personal is a sign of how your moral compass has been thrown out of whack by your repulsive arrogance.

Funny, “repulsive arrogance” was exactly the term that I would have used to describe you. How is your project to make me live until 200 years old coming along?

http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/ jefferyhodges

TK, I’ve long distinguished between radical and moderate multiculturalism. You know very little about my views. I don’t hold you accountable for that, but I do expect courtesy and respect in discussion, and you offered little of either in our exchange of views. You did accuse me of dishonesty, and you did categorize me as racist. The evidence speaks for itself. As for the problems with multiculturalism that I drew attention to, go to the substantive links that I gave above if you want to know more.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

CactusMcHarris

#86 is proof of the anti-JDense – did you really write that or did you get your talking dog to give you an outline. Well-said.

For the record – I’m against the death penalty. If we as a society say it’s wrong to kill, it’s at least hypocritical to do so lawfully, aside from being expensive. Make the prisoner pay through work for his crime.

On the other hand, if it was my wife /daughter / sister getting victimized, or a child, that seems to fall into the grey area of my thinking – what price for messing someone up for life? It doesn’t seem too far-fetched to say ‘A life for a life’ (part of RolyPoly’s Old Testament evangelism for you heathens), but that is the complete opposite of what I was thinking. It is a problem – I mean, of what value to society is a serial killer? That person already violated society’s rules, so I say hang ‘em high.

SalarymaninSeoul

#98 so are you against or not against the death penalty? The schizophrenic nature of your post makes it impossible to tell.

CactusMcHarris

#98,

On the fence, depending on the situation, but mostly against it? You seem to be a black-or-white fellow, but I’d say there’s lot of grey in peoples’ lives. Rarely is the purposeful death of someone so easy to determine.

CactusMcHarris

#99,

Oh, and thanks for the armchair evaluation – where’s the 5-cent check go?

SalarymaninSeoul

if youre in the gray you’re not against it then since youre willing to accept it in certain situations.

SalarymaninSeoul

It wasnt an evaluation of you, but the nature of the message which was divided against itself. Sort of like the very schizo UN Declaration of Human rights.

SalarymaninSeoul

Although I would put forth the idea that those who wrote that Declaration were mentally ill.

CactusMcHarris

That’s just my point – the schizo nature of people should be handily weighed before the DP is carried out.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

You did accuse me of dishonesty, and you did categorize me as racist. The evidence speaks for itself.

I think the evidence speaks for itself, contrary to your assertion. So we disagree.

If I haven’t been clear enough already — Mr. Hodges, you are one of the folks here whom I respect as a person who advocates for sensible things. It is disappointing to see you feel that way about our exchange. But I am not changing my opinion on what I meant by my words. I wrote those words, and I know my intention behind writing those words.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

I would like to add, Mr. Hodges, that I did visit your posts and I did read all of them carefully. (I did so because I respect your views.) I still do not see (1) how one can consider “radical multiculturalism” to be within the proper definition of “multiculturalism”; (2) how the criticism of “radical multiculturalism” has much relevance, since vast majority of discussion surrounding multiculturalism has nothing to do with the “radical multiculturalism” you speak of. None of your posts, nor any scholar cited in those posts, addresses these points.

http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

In my discussion with Mr. Hodges, I did not accuse anyone, and attributed nothing. Read the words I wrote.

OK, here’s what you wrote most recently:

this mode of argumentation is dishonest, because it fraudulently substitutes one thing for another.

To emphasize again: what is dishonest is the mode of argumentation that you employed.

Still want to deny it? You can continue to assert that it wasn’t personal, but that’s just another example of your penchant for trying to redefine terms in solipsistic ally self-serving ways (in order, among other things, to try to avoid admitting your all-too-obvious mistakes and failings).

And, yes I’m happy to say that I am on track to outlive you, even though you are probably half my age.

CactusMcHarris

Sper,

Is it the Suwon virgins’ blood elixir you’re using?

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

And, yes I’m happy to say that I am on track to outlive you, even though you are probably half my age.

I see your eyesight is failing and your memory fading. That’s ok — I understand that they are symptoms of aging. Read what I wrote, and I will even highlight the part that you missed: “How is your project to make me live until 200 years old coming along?”

If you recall, Koreans have this barbaric and backward superstition that getting insulted makes you live longer. So each time you write a post about me — invariably filled with insult — I just feel rejuvenated. Heck, your insults are so densely full of racist hatred that they may as well be the nectar of gods. So thanks. When I am 200 years old, I will have a glass of wine in your memory.

http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

Not at all; I was just deliberately ignoring your penchant – essential to your solipsism – to think that everything is about you.

And please stop further indulging your arrogance by flattering yourself that my comments about you are racist – I don’t consider you to be be particularly Korean, let alone a representative exemplar

http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

Oh, and isn’t it interesting that you still don’t have the sand to admit your attack on Hodges was personal, except by silence.

http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

cactus:

nope, eating more or less paleo and doing a lot of training in the Olympic lifts together with a moderate amount of cardio.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

Oh, and isn’t it interesting that you still don’t have the sand to admit your attack on Hodges was personal, except by silence.

It was not personal. But then again, why am I even bothering to restate my position? You will ignore it anyway. Thanks for adding another year to my lifespan, btw.

http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

Check your blood pressure, Tonto. LOL

http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/ jefferyhodges

TK wrote: “To emphasize again: what is dishonest is the mode of argumentation that you employed. I don’t think saying so is a personal attack.”

TK, you impugn my honesty even in this self-defense, and you seem to have forgotten entirely that you directly accused me of being disingenuous, a euphemism for deceptive, nor do you seem to recall your rhetorical flourish “let us not pretend,” a cliché, to be sure, but one in which the speaker implicitly accuses an opponent of deception.

I’m not hurt by any of this, nor do I feel insulted, but the language shows a lack of respect that I don’t tolerate, which is why I have little interest in discussing issues with you again — not that I won’t, mind you, just that I have little interest.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

gbnhj

Reading this thread reminds me why I’ve stopped trying to engage some people in discourse here. Some here always seem to be in the midst of controversy over how they said something, or what they said about some commenter, rather then in the midst of the controversial nature of their opinion, and I’ve got no interest in that.

When the thread’s comments deal more with “Why did he say that to / about me?” rather than “Why does he think that about the thread’s topic?”, then you know things have, once again, turned to shit. I’m reminded of something once said by a character on ‘The Wire': “You play in the dirt, you’re gonna get dirty”. As for myself, I’m not going to ‘play in the dirt’, particularly in cases when ‘getting dirty’ seems the only apparent benefit.

http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

Back to the topic, I’m surprised to see anyone giving serious consideration to the proposal for “chemical castration” in such cases. As explained (very clearly) by the Stanford bioligist Robert Sapolsky the title essay of The Trouble with Testosterone[http://www.amazon.com/The-Trouble-With-Testosterone-Predicament/dp/0684838915], such hormonal explanations have been shown to be essentially baseless, e.g., increasing testosterone to the highest imaginable natural levels does not cause an increase in aggressiveness (although it may amplify the expression of such aggression), which is better explained as a result of “nurture” (learned behaviour) and subsequent reinforcement through choice.

SalarymaninSeoul

Id be all for physical castration.

http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

Why? The available evidence is that it would do nothing to minimize the criminal’s perpetrating violence against women in the future – even if he couldn’t achieve penetration. Are you suggesting a purely retributive rationale?

slim

@117: I resent your tone, gbnhj!

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

TK, you impugn my honesty even in this self-defense, and you seem to have forgotten entirely that you directly accused me of being disingenuous, a euphemism for deceptive, nor do you seem to recall your rhetorical flourish “let us not pretend,” a cliché, to be sure, but one in which the speaker implicitly accuses an opponent of deception.

I would say further Mr. Hodges, but gbhnj put it correctly — there is no point going into this any more. I only discussed this further out of courtesy to you, but I believe this discussion has exhausted its utility. I still respect you as a sensible person, and I think you can plainly see in this thread the difference between how I treat the people I respect, and how I treat the people I don’t respect.

Check your blood pressure, Tonto. LOL

I have learned that when a man twice my age says “LOL”, he has run out of insults to hurl at me — for now.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

Anyway, I raised the issues I wanted to discuss waaaay back in @12 and @22. I repeatedly pointed them out and asked people to opine on it, but instead what I got was an 80-comment rant from several different people about irrelevant or past issues. What a waste of time that was.

Because I am genuinely interested in this issue, I will raise it again, and maybe this time there will be some decent rejoinders:

What does it mean for the system of liberal democracy, one of whose central tenet is universal human rights, when a significant number of the citizens within the liberal democracies of the world actively repudiate universal human rights?

http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/ jefferyhodges

TK (122) wrote: “I still respect you as a sensible person . . .”

There was little evidence of that on your part in our recent exchange of views on multiculturalism.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

There was little evidence of that on your part in our recent exchange of views on multiculturalism.

Mr. Hodges, this is not like you. I don’t see why you continue to revisit this issue, when you apparently formed an opinion about me and moved on. (@116.) I already said everything I could say about this point.

SalarymaninSeoul

Sperwer,

if a kid hits another kid with a stick, we take the stick from him. In the case of rapists, we should take away their sticks. There is nothing wrong about retributon against an animal, especially an animal that remains unrepentant.

#123, it means that despite the most intense efforts of certain liberal elements, people are not so easily fooled and do not accept the idea that we get to keep rights given to us by society when we attack society in the most henious and perverted ways. It means people do not sympathize with monstrous deviants, as you and others of your seedy ilk do. People are generally smart enough to see through what you are trying to sell us. Finally, the fact that the concept of human rights is merely half a century old, while democratic and civilized society is far older, suggests that this concept is not necessary for the existance of a civilized society, but, I would argue, is a danger to that society.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

@126, finally, something relevant and (mildly) interesting. Let’s pursue your reasoning a little further. If your view, how did liberal democracies come to have their current concept of human rights continuously for the last 60 years or so? In other words, how did these “monstrous deviants” come to coin and “sell” the concept of universal human rights, and why did so many countries — particularly the ones that were wealthy and civilized — “buy” such concept?

SalarymaninSeoul

First, Ive been maintaining the same thing throughoutt his thread, which makes it perplexing that before you “brought out the shovel” and now you credit the position with being (mildly) interesting.

You’re wrong one one thing. I do not think that people, in general, bought into these ideas. The elites did, and the elites are the ones in charge and in position to implement these ideas. But if you ask most people they would be closer to my position of repudiating the concept of human rights than your position. Remember, 60 years is a blip, it is certainly not a significant amount of time. Ideas fall by the wayside all the time and I think the idea of human rights is a transitory idea because it is not rooted in the general consciousness. Not that people don’t accept the idea of rights; most (myself included) do, but not in the way you do. My own position recognizes rights, but not in the absolute sense you see them in, but rather rights given to the individual and not inherent in some abstract higher being – Man – a form of which Im merely an instance. Coupled with my belief that rights are socially emergent phenomena (not absolutes from somwhere high above), bestowed on each person WITH conditions, it is my belief that when those conditions are violated the rights can be stripped away precisely because any rights I have are bestowed on ME, not on the higher essence, of Form (Man) . I find the whole idea you are espousing highly Platonic: we are merely instances of a Form (Man). And coming from that angle, I can see how you arrive at your position: if the Form is seen to be in possession of Human Rights, and we are merely its instances, then we too are endowed with rights that cannot be taken away (since how can you take anything away from an Form). As I said, something very Platonic.

I would also encourage you to read with comprehension and precision. The “monstrous deviants” are the people like the rapist here in question. I don’t think the elites who have been engineering these concepts are deviants nor monstrous, they are however misguided. Reading with comprehension, or as Nietzsche would say, having the art of reading well, would, I believe, prevent so many people from hating your guts (I’m new here but it seems you’re not a very well-like fellow).

Jashin Densetsu

#86 is proof of the anti-JDense – did you really write that or did you get your talking dog to give you an outline. Well-said.

i’m not sure if you understood what i meant bro. when i say live out their beliefs by mutual consent, i mean beliefs in anything. it could be cannibalism. anything bro.

http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/ jefferyhodges

TK (#125), I have moved on, but I’m a humanitarian at heart, so I left you with those penultimate words to reflect upon.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

Salaryman:

I think you misunderstood me a bit. I think retributivism is a coherent, and an empirically and normatively plausible theory of criminal punishment. It can even stand alone in that regard, although in fact our prevailing criminal justice thinking is rather a mash-up of retributivism, deterrence and rehabilitationsim. What I was getting at is that even if one commits to a very strong retributivist position, it doesn’t necessarily entail the sort of “eye-for-an-eye” approach you seem to be suggesting, particualrly if one wants to leave the door open for some deterrence/rehabilitationist elements. Even from the POV of the victims/society, eg., it doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to trade limb for limb if, as has been shown in these sorts of cases, relieving the criminal of the offending appendage – as retributively satisfying as it would be – doesn’t also provide some assurance that he won’t offend again, even without the organ in question.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

Ive been maintaining the same thing throughoutt his thread, which makes it perplexing that before you “brought out the shovel” and now you credit the position with being (mildly) interesting.

Well, no. That previous comment was the first time in this thread when you discussed something relevant to the issue that I wanted to discuss. All other comments of yours were filled with irrelevant screeching and dumb challenges. They went nowhere fast.

At any rate, thanks for the exposition of your views. I found it interesting.

Reading with comprehension, or as Nietzsche would say, having the art of reading well, would, I believe, prevent so many people from hating your guts (I’m new here but it seems you’re not a very well-like fellow).

Spend a little bit more time here, and you will find that simply being a strong minded, liberal Korean attracts a lot of hate in this space. Outside of this space, I run a pretty well-read blog that attracts thousands of people every day, precisely because I read and write better than most. Check it out some time.

TK (#125), I have moved on, but I’m a humanitarian at heart, so I left you with those penultimate words to reflect upon.

I don’t know, Mr. Hodges. I would think that continuing to revisit this issue is the opposite of moving on.

Jashin Densetsu

there is a right to self-defense. anyone will fight back if they’re cornered. rights aren’t given by society or an emergent phenomenon of society.

http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

No, there is an instinct for self-preservation, which may or may not eventuate in self-defense; flight or submission also are options. The “right” to self-defense is socially-created through social acceptance and recognition, which unfortunately are often stated in bogus universal abstract terms.

SalarymaninSeoul

#133, Not all your instincts are rights. Recognition of the validity of your instinct IS an emergent social phenoma, and we call them rights. But not all instincts are recognized and given such status.

Jashin Densetsu

the reason we consider rape seriously is because it traditionally was associated with pregnancy, either actual pregnancy or a decent chance of it. if it never had anything to do with pregnancy, then we would never have considered it more serious than regular physical assault. today it’s less associated with pregnancy because of stuff like morning after pills, abortion, etc. so what would actually be retributivist in this context?

http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

Obtaining the possibility of greater voluntary control over reproductive processes through technology wouldn’t seem to make much difference to the inclination to treat violent involuntary interference with reproductive affairs retributively.

SalarymaninSeoul

So wait, if it was all related to pregnancy, does that mean that we always condoned rape of 7 year olds?

Jashin Densetsu

every organism has the right to self-defense bro. it has nothing to do with what anyone thinks or says. you can go tell a lion he doesn’t have a right to self-defense. it doesn’t matter. he will assert his right to self-defense.

Jashin Densetsu

when did i say that rape was condoned? i said that rape was considered especially serious and heinous because of its association with pregnancy, and that if it never in history ever had anything to do with pregnancy, in other words that it wasn’t a sexual act, then that we wouldn’t take it more seriously than other violent physical crimes, not that we would condone it.

SalarymaninSeoul

Sure, and I think pretty much every society that acknowledges some concept of rights allows for self-defense. Whats the issue? You have to however realize what rights are: that while rights recognize certain natural instincts, they are still social phenomena, not natural phenomena.

http://www.sperwerslog.com Sperwer

@139

Right, because you say so, and add “bro” to indicate you REALLY mean it. Very persuasive.

SalarymaninSeoul

7 year olds cant get pregnant. You said that with birth control its nothing more than simple assault. Well, 7 year olds have natural birth control.

IF rape wasnt a sexual crime….maybe in a different dimension, eh?

Jashin Densetsu

the right to self-defense is a natural phenomenon. it doesn’t matter what anyone acknowledges or says. every animal has it. it’s there.

Jashin Densetsu

i said if it never had anything to do with pregnancy, then we would never have considered it more serious than regular physical assault. good birth control is new. our feelings and instincts about this come from before the era of good birth control.

LolaMarigolda

In Florida, sex with a child 12 and under generally gets you life, but can also get you the death penalty. Even if he started when she was 13, he’d still have gotten way more than 6 years because he was in a custodial role. The guys who get popped for tapping underage tail (14-17 year olds) can also find themselves in the civil commitment center after being released from prison. You check in and no one has ever checked out. Making statements like this guy has would definitely get his classification team doing paperwork so he’d be considered for civil commitment.

Bottom line: There is no rehabilitating guys like this.

SalarymaninSeoul

Jashin,

but it is tied to pregnancy so your hypotheticals are useless. Again, just because its a fact of nature does not make it a RIGHT, it merely makes it a fact of nature. Not all facts of nature are rights.

Jashin Densetsu

i said,

“the reason we consider rape seriously is because it traditionally was associated with pregnancy, either actual pregnancy or a decent chance of it. if it never had anything to do with pregnancy, then we would never have considered it more serious than regular physical assault. today it’s less associated with pregnancy because of stuff like morning after pills, abortion, etc. so what would actually be retributivist in this context?”

Jashin Densetsu

Again, just because its a fact of nature does not make it a RIGHT, it merely makes it a fact of nature. Not all facts of nature are rights.

you’re begging the question bro.

Jashin Densetsu

the right to self-defense is a right by definition. every animal has the right to self-defense. it exists in the world. the right to self-defense exists. it’s a fact.

SalarymaninSeoul

Animals don’t have rights. Rights are co-existant with obligations. Animals lack the rational powers to observe any obligations hence they can have no rights. The terms “animal rights” is a misnomer. Self defense exists, yes. The right to self-defense does not exist on its own, it needs legal sanction for it to be recognized as a right. There is no magical source (God) or natural source of rights (no natural law). In fact rights are a human invention, a social phenomenon, and exist nowhere outside of human society, and then not even in every society: do you think there were rights in the state of nature? For millenia people didnt even have the concept of rights. At some point we conjured them up. Not out of thin air, the idea of “natural rights” was derived from reflections on nature, such as what you are doing. But that does not mean that rights have their source in nature; that nature gives us rights, bro.

SalarymaninSeoul

As Hume maintained, you cannot go from the descriptive FACT to the normative “ought.” And rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people (rights and obligations). It doesnt work, its a fallacy and no one has been able to breech this divide, not even Kant, so Im not buying that YOU are able to do it.

We created rights and legally sanctioned them because we believe that life in a society governed by laws that GIVE US certain rights is better than having no rights. And we believed in the concept that we created and sometimes we had to spill blood to get a government that protected these rights. But rights are not absolute, not derived from without our social context.

SalarymaninSeoul

I would argue that rights are a result of the clash between wills to power: State versus the people. Its a struggle, it costs blood, and the victor is uncertain.

Avaast

I’ve been following this blog for a while, and enjoy reading a variety of nuanced opinions on various issues to do with Korea. However, I’m sad to say that lately, and for various reasons, it seems that there has been a great deal of quite unpleasant tension building up over quite a few threads which is starting to boil over.

I don’t want to single out any particular user, since I generally value each and every person’s contribution to discussion. But I would like to issue a general plea to the users of this blog to tone down some of the invective/ad hominem/trollishness that has been so rampant lately, and make an honest effort to engage in polite discussion. I don’t particularly enjoy embracing the role of the discussion group peacekeeper angel, but it’s becoming increasingly hard to watch people get slammed with direct/indirect personal attacks and unsubstantiated claims. I’m also well aware of the nature of the blogosphere and just how impossible it is to expect everyone to pay attention to such a plea. But let’s please try to at least put an end to this present trend of unpleasantness. For all our sakes!

http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/ jefferyhodges

Jashin Densetsu wrote:

“the right to self-defense is a right by definition. every animal has the right to self-defense. it exists in the world. the right to self-defense exists. it’s a fact.”

You’re conflating power with right (and confusing definition with fact). Animals (generally) have the power to defend themselves.

But if power is a right, then lions also have the right to kill and eat other animals . . . unless an animal is too big and powerful for the lions, a huge bull elephant, for example, which has the power — hence the right — to kill the lions . . . unless there are too many lions, and they have sufficient power to kill the huge bull elephant, which gives them the right to kill it. These are all facts, too.

So many facts, so many rights . . .

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

Jashin Densetsu

rights have nothing to do with obligations. all organisms have a right to self-defense. it has nothing to do with what anyone or society says or thinks.

Jashin Densetsu

the right to self-defense isn’t an ought. it exists in the real world.

Jashin Densetsu

i’m not conflating power with right bro. the right to self-defense that every animal has, has nothing to do with its power. so you can’t derive all those other rights just from power. the right to self-defense that all organisms have is the most fundamental, basic right. i don’t know about any other rights that derive from this fundamental right or from any other facts.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

Rights are co-existant with obligations.

Under this principle, could you please explain further on the rights of biological humans who are incapable to carrying out any obligation? I will eschew the easy example (infants,) but how about, say, a comatose person? Does such a person have any right?

Also, in your schema of rights, does the amount of rights afforded to a person vary proportionately according to the amount of obligations that the person may carry out?

Jashin Densetsu

jeffery,

even the weakest, most powerless animal, like a mouse, has the right to self-defense. it has nothing to do with power bro. you simply can’t just talk or imagine or hand wave it away bro. you can’t take it away from the mouse or any other living thing.

the bull elephant has a right to self-defense whether he’s facing down one lion or a pack of lions.

Jashin Densetsu

jeffery,

if you were being chased down by a hungry lion, and i told you that you had no right to self-defense, you’d think i was insane bro.

SalarymaninSeoul

Korean,

Id be glad to. Notice that if we take 100 lions or 100 zebras, or 100 dogs or even 100 chimps, there will not be a single one who is able to grasp the idea of an obligation. You can search all the chimps, dogs, cats, lions or zebras in the world and you will still not find a single one.

While there are special cases with people: mental incompetence, young age, senility, what have you, these are marginal cases. Rights are an institution that we have created and we have chosen to extend CERTAIN rights even to those who are unable to rationally honor obligations. Notice however that we do not extend all rights to such people, that we choose to limit their rights, be that for age or for mental illness, and even for a criminal conviction. So yes, those people have rights, but these are limited rights. The western tradition of the Rule of Law comes from this same motivation of applying the same standards across the board as much as possible.

Another way to look at this is like this. Illnesses, natural biological degradation, etc beyond our control may occur to all of us and we are a strong enough society to extend rights even to those who are not rationally able to honor their obligations. These cases are usually, as I said, relatively uncommon and generally harmless to society and there is far more upside to including every person under the umbrella of rights.

But to return to the case at hand, of the rapist, here we have a much different case: a violent, sane individual who methodically and over several years raped and then impregnated a minor under his care, and who feels no remorse and even demands to be thanked for what he did. Here is a person who chose not to honor his obligations and who has therefore forfeited his rights, someone who has sunk below the status of a human being by acting like an animal. I hold that animals have no rights and, by extension, neither does he.

“Also, in your schema of rights, does the amount of rights afforded to a person vary proportionately according to the amount of obligations that the person may carry out?”

Rights vary for a number of reasons. Its strange that a lawyer would ask me this question. Can a 16 year old vote? Can a convicted felon? A right cannot exist in isolation. A right to life carries with it an obligation to honor the right to life of another person. Murderers forfeit their right to life. That we choose not to kill them is a separate matter, one more about US than the killers: there is a general belief that executing killers would somehow compromise us. This is not a belief I share.

SalarymaninSeoul

Here is another angle. If aliens came to live on Earth, extremely intelligent, highly rational beings and petitioned us for rights, we would have 2 options. And the choice, I hold, would depend on their intentions towards us. If friendly, there is no reason not to give them all the rights we enjoy (or most) and welcome them to our society. They would most likely be assets and enrich our world. However, should they turn out to be hostile to us, or unwilling to honor obligations, we would deny them rights and attempt to eradicate the threat.

So there is more to is than just rationality vis a vis obligations. Rationality is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The analogy extends to murderers and rapists.

The third possibility is one that resembles your question: say that we came across a ship of 10 alien beings who were somehow unable to function rationally (maybe they were hurt in an accident, or were very young). I would imagine that in such a case we would grant them certain rights, OR, we would behave towards them with some amount of compassion (as we do towards animals).

Jashin Densetsu

salaryman,

you’re wrong about animals bro. many animals live in sophisticated societies with obligations and stuff.

if i sicced a pack of vicious pitbulls on you, are you telling me that you only have a right to self-defense because society says so? if society disbanded in the middle of the attack would you just let them tear you to shreds bro?

Jashin Densetsu

even the most heinous criminal on death row has the right to self-defense, so it’s incorrect to say that criminals have absolutely no rights or somehow forfeit or lose all their rights.

SalarymaninSeoul

Jashin,

of course I would defend myself against pittbulls or humans. I think you misunderstand what I’m saying about rights. Its probably important to realize the distinction I make between human rights and individual rights. Human rights, as I said, are platonic nonsense, and the tool of the collectivists. Individual rights are the ground rules we decide on when we form into voluntary societies – we enter into actual contracts with each other which stipulate the rights each of us enjoys and the concomitant obligations that go with those rights. Not the sort of nonsense Rousseau had in mind, into which you are born, but the kind Stirner advocated. The fact that no rights exist in nature does not mean we cannot grant ourselves certain rights – like the right to life which would allow you to defend yourself against attacks. As an individualist I would only choose to live in a society of like-minded people who believed in liberty and personal choice, which would be a society that stuck close to the Lockean conception of natural rights – Life, liberty, property. I only disagree with the source of rights – nature grants nothing.

Jashin Densetsu

the right to self-defense does exist in nature bro. the right to self-defense doesn’t come from the right to life. the right to life doesn’t allow you to defend yourself. you don’t need the right to life to defend yourself bro.

SalarymaninSeoul

This is my last word with you. Actually not me, but Hume.

“In every system of morality which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a god, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find that instead of the usual copulation of propositions is and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought or an ought not. This change is imperceptible, but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought or ought not expresses some new relation or affirmation, it is necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason ought to be given for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others which are entirely different from it.”

i.e. You cannot derive an ought (morality, rights, obligations) from an is – the imperative from the fact.

Since Hume no philosopher has been able to answer this challenge. You are committing this very fallacy: “In the state of nature there is self defense, ergo, I should have the right to self defense.” Every attempt to deduce a morality from a fact is going to run up against Hume. Period. Kant couldn’t overcome Hume, and you sure as hell haven’t.

Your “right to self defense” comes from Locke. Locke said “The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it” which teaches that “no one ought to harm another”. This runs up against Hume. In fact any attempt at establishing natural law will run up against Hume. And it will fall.

Bro.

http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/ jefferyhodges

JD, the fact that animals defend themselves in nature is fact about instinct. Every animal has an instinctive drive to survive. That drive is basic both to fighting for survival and eating for survival.

If you argue that an animal’s self-defense is a right, then so is an animal’s attack upon other animals for food. A lion therefore has the right to attack and eat you.

So many facts, so many rights . . .

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

Rights vary for a number of reasons. Its strange that a lawyer would ask me this question. Can a 16 year old vote? Can a convicted felon?

Funny that you just lectured me about reading well, and answer my question with a non sequitur above. Here is my question again: “In your schema of rights, does the amount of rights afforded to a person vary proportionately according to the amount of obligations that the person may carry out?”

I will elaborate a little further. From what I can tell, your schema of rights is inextricably connected to obligations. To the extent that certain humans are incapable of meeting those obligations, we would still extend some amount of right to such humans, for some reason. (Follow up on this point: if a comatose person’s right is essentially a generous gift from the society at large, why give such a gift? Wouldn’t it be better — in a utilitarian sense — to have these people serve as a source of organs or subject of human experimentation?)

I am curious about the opposite end of that equation — is someone afforded with a greater right if that someone is able to carry out greater obligations, under your understanding of rights? Suppose we have a person who is both very rich and very generous, such that she positively transformed the lives of hundreds of people in some way or another. Is she afforded a greater set of rights than others, by virtue of being able to carry out greater obligations?

SalarymaninSeoul

Talking about instincts that exist in nature, much of what we call mating is outright rape. Is there are right to rape because some species’ males have an instinct to do so?

Korean,

you pose good questions. As you know there is no cut and dry answer, the area of rights is a very tricky, often murky area. But I will try to answer your questions.

As I already wrote, we do extend rights to marginal cases not able to fulfill obligations. Children because we recognize they will be adults soon enough, the sick and the comatose because they pose no danger and are insignificant in number. This is because we have come to realize that doing so creates a better society to live in, and the fact that any one of us could at any point enter such a state. This is why we give such a gift. In a utilitarian sense, yes, we could very well do that which you describe (harvesting), and perhaps some societies do. But I’m pretty sure such societies do not stop there – harvest the organs of the defenseless but provide a full set of rights for the rest of the society. History shows that if there is abuse of the weak there is generally abuse of the rest of the people. We shape our institutions in an effort to have the best possible society in which to live and hence we generally shun such abuse of the weak.

SalarymaninSeoul

As far as your other question goes, I will illustrate with some examples.

The requirement for a system of rights {A, B. C, ….. N} is that it not contain self-contradictions: E.g. A (right to property) and B (right to healthcare) are contradictory and cannot co-exist logically.

Furthermore, A and B above are different in that A does not create a positive obligation while B does: I have no POSITIVE obligation to do anything about your property, only a negative one not to take it. I DO have a positive obligation to provide you with healthcare (through taxes, for example).

A non-self-contradictory system of rights that do not create uneven positive obligations is the only sustainable system. If this can be satisfied in your example of the exceptional person then OK, but I cant see it. Show some examples.

Jashin Densetsu

You are committing this very fallacy: “In the state of nature there is self defense, ergo, I should have the right to self defense.”

no bro. i said that every living thing has a right to self-defense. not that every living thing should have the right to self-defense.

what i’m talking about has nothing to do with hume or locke. it doesn’t matter what they said.

Jashin Densetsu

jeffery,

animals defend themselves in nature because they have the right to self-defense. this right may be reducible to an even more basic fundamental right(s) from which the right to self-defense and possibly other rights follow.

A non-self-contradictory system of rights that do not create uneven positive obligations is the only sustainable system. If this can be satisfied in your example of the exceptional person then OK, but I cant see it. Show some examples.

I don’t think I can. Remember, I am trying to figure out the contours of your idiosyncratic schema of human rights. I can’t set up your system of rights for you, and figure out the example within it.

If I was forced to come up with an example, it would be highly abstract, as in: “In a ‘non-self-contradictory system of rights that do not create uneven positive obligations,’ would the rich and generous woman described above be afforded a greater set of rights?” This question is virtually useless. Perhaps you can set up a miniature version of your system of rights, and I can attempt to find an example within it.

In a utilitarian sense, yes, we could very well do that which you describe (harvesting), and perhaps some societies do. But I’m pretty sure such societies do not stop there – harvest the organs of the defenseless but provide a full set of rights for the rest of the society. History shows that if there is abuse of the weak there is generally abuse of the rest of the people.

Ok, interesting. Let’s take that position back to criminal law. We all know that historically, criminal law has been a tool for abusing the weak. For example, DNA testing has revealed that many convicted rapists in the U.S. are in fact innocent. Further, these wrongfully convicted people mostly are the social weak — they are some combination of poor, uneducated, unsophisticated, racial minority, etc. And these wrongfully convicted people, in your system of rights, would have been castrated and sentenced to hard labor, only to be revealed as innocent after years, sometimes decades.

How does your system of rights handle this type of the abuse of the weak? Do the judge, police, prosecutor and the jurors lose their balls, for example?

SalarymaninSeoul

You are evading the question again. You gave the hypothetical of a person enjoying more rights. I asked you to provide me with an example – you evaded. I honestly cannot think of what sort of right that additional right would be. Again, in my conception of rights, the right A is coexistent with duty A': right to life is coexistent with the duty not to violate that right (a negative duty). That’s it. For any set of rights {A,…N} there are duties {A’,…N’}. Violating a right B, for example right to property by taking someone’s property would mean the wrongdoer failed to honor his duty and would himself lose his own right B. So that answers your question about the judge losing his balls: I believe that in cases of wrongful conviction the ones at fault should be punished themselves. How we go about determining who was at fault, would be a tricky business (was it merely an error, was there wilfulness involved) but that is the basic principle. And while I am a proponent of capital punishment, I am not for treating this responsibility lightly and handing it out like candy on Halloween.

If we create a right, Z, for a special individual, we would create a duty Z’ for the rest of society. As far as this goes, it creates an unsymmetrical (uneven) distribution of rights and duties in the system and it violates one of the requirements of my system as I outlines above. I would hence conclude that it was impossible.

Any system riddled with internal contradictions is going to collapse at some point in time. And this is exactly what we are seeing happening today as there is a power grab whereby special interests are trying to get as many privileges for themselves as they can, at the expense of others, under the name of rights. The situation as it is now, what I termed “rights inflation” is unsustainable and is creating privileged groups living off others. Too many rights, a confusion about what rights are and greed will lead to a situation where eventually no rights exist at all.

Jashin,

youre an idiot. Read what Hume said. AGAIN. Clearly. Slowly.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

You are evading the question again. You gave the hypothetical of a person enjoying more rights. I asked you to provide me with an example – you evaded.

We are talking about YOUR schema of rights that only exists in your head. I have no idea what kind of rights exist in your imaginary world, so I asked you to give some visibility into that world. You refused — and I’m the one who’s evading the question?

For any set of rights {A,…N} there are duties {A’,…N’}. Violating a right B, for example right to property by taking someone’s property would mean the wrongdoer failed to honor his duty and would himself lose his own right B.

This formulation is different from what you outlined earlier. Earlier, you were speaking of a system in which an obligation gives rise to a right. Now, you are talking about a system in which a right gives rise to an obligation. Of course, it is possible that those two propositions can coexist in a single system. But again, the problem is that this is the first time you are offering this formulation. I can’t give an example that makes sense when I do not have visibility into your schema of rights.

So that answers your question about the judge losing his balls: I believe that in cases of wrongful conviction the ones at fault should be punished themselves. How we go about determining who was at fault, would be a tricky business (was it merely an error, was there wilfulness involved) but that is the basic principle.

Ok. In your system of retributive justice, how does one punish a defendant who is, say, one-tenth at fault? If 100% fault entails the punishment of castration, what does 10% fault entail?

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

Again, in my conception of rights, the right A is coexistent with duty A’: right to life is coexistent with the duty not to violate that right (a negative duty). That’s it. For any set of rights {A,…N} there are duties {A’,…N’}. Violating a right B, for example right to property by taking someone’s property would mean the wrongdoer failed to honor his duty and would himself lose his own right B.

Focusing on this passage, I will show you the difference between a system in which an obligation gives rise to a right, and a system in which a right gives rise to an obligation.

In the above, you gave a system in which a right gives rise to an obligation. Apparently, the obligation is strictly the negative duty of not violating the right (presumably held by another, although you did not make this clear.) In other words, to the extent that: (1) a right exists, and; (2) a person upholds the negative duty in connection with that right is upheld, the person gets to keep that right.

Then let’s revisit the comatose person. Under the formulation above, the comatose person has a right to live because (1) a right to life exists, and; (2) the comatose person WILL uphold the negative duty. (It is not possible for the comatose person to hurt anyone!) But this is not what you said earlier — you were saying that any right that the comatose person gets is no more than a gift given to him by the society at large. So which is it?

SalarymaninSeoul

I frankly fail to see the conflict.

Rights are given.
Along with rights are given duties.
Duties are negative: do not violate the rights of others.

The comatose person is unlikely to violate any rights of others. He is welcome to his rights.

SalarymaninSeoul

I said rights and duties are CO-EXISTANT, not that one gives rise to another (they appear simultaneously). I already said that the only thing that gives rise to rights, and by extension to duties, is what we decide. Rights are a fully manmade institution.

The practical application of punishment is probably far too extensive a topic to be discussed here. Im only giving you my starting principle. As always, this would be something that shapes itself through various decisions. Im only providing the underlying principle, one opposed to the current views that see the goal in re-educating the individual (more odten than not to the cost of society by introducing violent, often unrepentent predators into society). Im curious how the individual here would be 10% guilty of raping this girl. Was it because he only raped her every 10th day?

And yes, you did evade. I fail to see how you got the idea that someone could have additional rights under my system. By definition those would be privileges, not rights. Privileges already exist, and are more often than not called “rights.”

palladin9479

“- Is there a reason why you do not favor life without parole over capital punishment, if deterrence is what matters to you? Cost?

– How do you reconcile the apparent clash between “swift” capital punishment and a proper assessment of rehabilitative potential? A lot of people become rehabilitated after, say, a decade in prison.”

I apologize for responding late, I’ve been a bit busy lately.

Problem with life over death sentence is two fold. One is that society at large must pay for the threat to be jailed, they’ve already committed murder asking the victims family / loved ones / society to support them is a bit much. The second is that you eventually end up with an institution full of people who’ve already demonstrated themselves to be dangerous to others. That institution would ever be growing as the human population, and subsequently the percentage of nonredeemable (? not sure if thats the right word to use) murders, increases. That sounds like a bad day just waiting to happen.

On the second question, “swift” is after the decision by a qualified panel of professionals (after said individual was convicted by jury). That decision may take quite a long time but once it’s done it’s done and the mandate should be carried out swiftly and with no pain. This isn’t to extract retribution or revenge but to protect society at large from someone who will murder. I don’t believe the next of kin or anyone for that matter should be allowed to witness the death sentence, it’s not a spectacle to celebrate.

Now that is with a purely practical and borderline sociopathic neutrality. It does create a conflict for my own belief system. I’m a firm believer in free will, I do not like the idea of forcibly removing a choice from someone. People should be allowed to make their choices and be held to the consequences of those choices. Removing a choice is removing personal responsibility and personal growth from people. Yet at the same time I believe life should be protected whenever possible. Thus we have a conflict of the removal of the free will of a convicted murder (the choice to not murder again) vs the life and safety of people living in the same society. Either choice results in wrongs being done, you kill a murders who might not of murdered again, or you allow someone to die by that same murderer. Or the murderer could of been innocent, as no justice system is perfect, and thus you murdered.

Nothing is ever as easy as people like to make it out to be.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

I frankly fail to see the conflict.

Rights are given.
Along with rights are given duties.
Duties are negative: do not violate the rights of others.

You don’t see the conflict because you just ignored what you wrote previously, which conflicted with what you write now.

But that’s fine, I will take this as a clarification of your view. So under your system, all duties associated with a right are negative. Is that a fair characterization?

Im curious how the individual here would be 10% guilty of raping this girl. Was it because he only raped her every 10th day?

You have a tendency to lose track of the discussion. No one said that the individual here is 10% guilty of raping this girl.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

I apologize for responding late, I’ve been a bit busy lately.

No worries, better late than never. And thanks for the explication.

SalarymaninSeoul

The only conflict arises out of your inability to read clearly, and hence you imagine things that were never said. To clarify: Rights and duties are co-existant. They are given simultaneously since they are two sides of the same coin. Yes, all duties are negative duties. If you were able to follow the discussion and noticed that I deny the existance of rights IN NATURE (or in any other source) you would be able to realize I deny this to duties as well. I could waste my time correcting every misunderstanding arising from your inability to clearly read with a proper level of comprehension, but that would be a waste of time.

Someone did however say that 6 years was a LONG sentence for someone who repeatedly raped a minor over 2 or 3 years and shows no remorse, but rather expects to be thanked. He considers he has “human rights” and like you, rejects the idea that his “human rights” carry with them any sort of obligation to the rights of others.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

Yes, all duties are negative duties.

That’s all that was necessary. The rest was useless screeching. Again, it is more than a little ironic that you lecture me about reading clearly, when I have to constantly whip you into staying on topic. It is only in the interest of civil discussion that I am not owning your ass with numerous internal contradictions of what you have written so far. Review this thread, and you will realize that I am giving you a chance to explain your position as fully as you can. I don’t give that kind of chance to just anyone.

Let’s travel in your imaginary world a little further. If all duties are negative duties, is there no positive duty that may be imposed to people? Duty to pay taxes, for example? Duty to tell the truth to other people? Duty of good manners? Or duty to rescue people in need, to the extent that such rescue done with minimal effort and little danger to the would-be rescuer? What about duties specific to a more defined group of people? (For example, do parents have a positive duty to take care of their children?)

SalarymaninSeoul

Ive been setting straight things you say I said that were never said. Now, perhaps a lot of that is my fault, for not being clear enough. But some blame lies with you.

You still avoid my questions. Ive asked you several questions and you never answer. This is starting to feel like a court interrogation, and quite frankly, its becoming annoying as I don’t think you are engaging in this conversation in the propert spirit of discovery.

You are correct. There are no legitimate positive duties. I would argue that not even in the case of parents taking care of their children is there a positive duty to care for them. There is simply a negative duty not to violate their rights. I would argue that below some level of care provided, these righhts would be violated (e.g. withholding food and shelter, physically violating them through abuse of any sort, etc) and at that point the parents would lose their status of guardianship. As you well know we have adoption and orphanages which have been used, and are still used by parents who do not want to take care of their children. Parents who refuse to make use of such institutions and keep guardianship but who fail to provide enough care to meet the basic level required as outlined above would be in the wrong. As for paying taxes, is it your contention (I’m asking a question which you will surely evade) that it is a moral duty to pay taxes? As far as I’m concerned taxation is theft enforced with violence by a government that has a monopoly on coercion. It is as much a duty as a slave would have had to his master. To say duty is to use a misnomer. To speak of a “duty to good manners” is perplexing, Ive never actually seen this claimed before. Are bad manners then immoral? Is etiquette a question of morality? Do I have a right to good manners from you? if I do, you’ve been breaking my rights, and rights of others all over this thread. You will have to come up with better examples.

I ask no civility from you and if you see contradictions in what I wrote, point them out. If they are legitimate, I’ll be thankful to you for pointing out where I need to reformulate my ideas. Most likely, however, you’ve imagined these contadictions from your inability to read properly.

Again where is the contradiction:
1. Rights are man-made and man-granted. No rights and no duties exist in nature (or another source such as God)
2. Rights are co-existant with duties. They are two sides of the same coin. One dos not give rise to another, they come together.
3. Right A is accompanied with a negative duty A’ not to violate right A. If A is violated then the violator, having broken his duty, loses his right A.
4. Violation of a duty means the loss of the equivalent right. This was reflected in my post where you asked about punishment for 4 different crimes.
5. All duties are negative. To introduce positive duties is to introduce massive contradictions to the system if the system has within it any notion of self-ownership. if it doesn’t then perhaps positive duties may be applied. However as far as I know our system of rights does imply self-ownership (right to life, right to assembly, right to property all presuppose self-ownership). A system of rights without self-ownership would be a strange thing indeed, for how can slaves have rights?

Finally, Ive answered all your questions, as patiently as possible considering you havent answered any of mine. I then return to one of the questions I asked early on: “Please tell me where in this discussion we touched the topic of AESTHETICS.” Id appreciate a direct quite that deals with aesthetics.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

This is starting to feel like a court interrogation, and quite frankly, its becoming annoying as I don’t think you are engaging in this conversation in the propert spirit of discovery.

You, sir, have much to learn about the Internet.

As for paying taxes, is it your contention (I’m asking a question which you will surely evade) that it is a moral duty to pay taxes?

I only asked you a question. I don’t know why you imply contention.

Finally, Ive answered all your questions, as patiently as possible considering you havent answered any of mine.

You really have trouble with the definition of the word “any”, don’t you? Refer to @21, 28, 33, 39, 42, 44 to see instances of answering a number of your questions.

I then return to one of the questions I asked early on: “Please tell me where in this discussion we touched the topic of AESTHETICS.” Id appreciate a direct quite [sic] that deals with aesthetics.

Of all the questions to come back to, you come back to this? This is about the most irrelevant question there could be in this entire thread.

I will give you a short version: we have been dealing with aesthetics in this entire thread, because practical morality — the kind that manifests itself through criminal justice system — is ultimately a matter of aesthetics. It is a matter of taste, a matter of what appears beautiful and ugly to people. Popular concept of morality changes as popular aesthetics change. This is particularly true when it comes to punishment involving physical brutality — precisely the topic of this thread.

SalarymaninSeoul

Its a question I came back to because you never offered an answer. Now that you have, I see why you evaded for so long.

ERGO: the psychology falls under the study of meteorology. This conclusion was reached using the above logic.

Logic does not appear to be your strong suit. Others in this thread have noted the same. (Hint: my sentence that you quoted involves no logic. Think a little bit about that.)

I think this thread is about done.

I agree. I am getting bored of playing in your crazy imagination land. No further questions from me.

And people ask YOU questions?

Yup. Thousands of people come to see what I wrote every day. I got multiple book deals too. Truth is, I can’t really believe it myself.

SalarymaninSeoul

“I am. Because I put in so much effort to read and write English to get to my level of fluency, it bothers me when others casually mangles [sic] the language.”

oooooohhh that looks bad. My typo was not in the context of preaching at others about writing properly. You moved to the US at about the same age as I moved to Canada from my country of origin, which is not an English speaking country. Don’t bullshit me about “putting in work to get your fluency up.”

You reach a conclusion that aesthetics and criminal punishment are the same based on some similarities, one of them being “undergoing regular change.” Reaching conclusions from premises does involve a logical operation.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

oooooohhh that looks bad.

It does. Call it a curse of the pedant.

You moved to the US at about the same age as I moved to Canada from my country of origin, which is not an English speaking country.

What age, and which country?

Reaching conclusions from premises does involve a logical operation.

There was no premise in what I wrote — only conclusions. Again, it is pretty funny that you wail and wail about reading clearly, when you can’t grasp even a very basic point.

SalarymaninSeoul

I was 14, Poland.

The conclusion that criminal justice falls under aesthetics was reached from certian premises and these were that both involve change and that both involve some question of peference from people. These are premises. You are stating facts (yes, both are subject to change and yes, both involve preferences) but your conclusion is as valid as my conclusion about meteoroly and psychology. Certainly your view of what aesthetics is is not a commonly accepted definition of aesthetics as it is understoon in the sense of it being a philosophy of beauty and art.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

The conclusion that criminal justice falls under aesthetics was reached from certian premises and these were that both involve change and that both involve some question of peference from people.

I only stated the conclusion, and certain observations attendant to that conclusion. Why you insist that my observations must be premises instead, I don’t know. (Because you know better about how I use my own words?)

Certainly your view of what aesthetics is is not a commonly accepted definition of aesthetics as it is understoon in the sense of it being a philosophy of beauty and art.

My view of aesthetics comes from Kant. You might have heard of him.

SalarymaninSeoul

Wow, Kant? Really? A misreading of Kant, I’d say, or a very liberal interpretation. Its interesting, however, that your total disregard of the primacy of duties (for me anyway, I do not claim a primacy of duties yet you get your panties in a bunch even over this position) in ethics, morality and hence rights) goes full stop against …….. Kant and deontology in general.

SalarymaninSeoul

And shit, man, talk about appeal to authority!

Me: Defend your position about aesthetics.
You: Kant said it!

Nice.

http://askakorean.blogspot.com thekorean

Its interesting, however, that your total disregard of the primacy of duties (for me anyway, I do not claim a primacy of duties yet you get your panties in a bunch even over this position) in ethics, morality and hence rights) goes full stop against …….. Kant and deontology in general.

What can I say? I have a rich intellectual world populated with the philosophies of many. Some work well together, some don’t, and I must harmonize them in a way that makes sense to me.

And shit, man, talk about appeal to authority!

You argued that my view of aesthetics is not common. My rejoinder was that my view is the same from Kant’s, a popular and influential philosopher whose ideas are quite commonly espoused. Again, you have a real hard time reading clearly. You are lacking what might be called an intellectual rigor — i.e. fairly interpreting your opposition and meet the strong argument head-on. Hence, your continued insistence that you somehow know better about what I meant by my words than I do.

Plus, it is pretty damn funny to see this after all your screeching about Hume. Anything to score a mental victory, I guess. But you will learn precious little that way. See ya later, and feel free to have the last word and declare victory. As for me, it’s time to leave the office.

SalarymaninSeoul

And I argue your view is a misunderstanding of Kant. You are welcome to call Kant to your side, but its not enough to claim he said it, why don’t you show that what Kant said squares with what you are saying.

As far as intellectual rigor, this whole thread is you asserting I said things I never did and which I could not have said. and it seems that your entire M.O. is to twist other people’s words and to make them busy clearing up false assertions. Anyway, pot, kettle, black.

And I agree, we are free to pick and choose from different philosophies, yet its funny that you pick and choose from Kant’s philosophy a small point whereas your position in dozens of posts has been consistenly one of denying the very foundations of deontology.

jang ja-yeon

A lot of people become rehabilitated after, say, a decade in prison.

TK, you really do sound like a naive lawyer there buddy. If you believe that you’ll believe just about anything. No one gets rehabilitated after a decade in prison, in the states and i’m sure in Korea as well. ever

jang ja-yeon

prison is a good way to keep the guy off the streets. but when the harsh reality hits him on the sunny concrete society will pay again for this “ex” criminal. the only way we can effect change on the released prisoner after a decade is to keep an a vigilant eye out for him as a society. we can’t expect anything from the police once he’s out. he needs to be watched with a 24 hr lense, and that is the only way we can hope he changes his ways once he is released from prison. the length of this vigilance should be considered. you think of Bang Myung-Hoon and Jun Gi Sang. society has done nothing to change their ways or exact retribution to them. if we want change or rehabilitation we as a society can only be vigilant and have each others back instead of relying on a judicial system and the cops to have the final say.